February 26, 2024 • 30 mins
Discover the hidden truths behind tech industry layoffs and remote work dynamics as we join IT guru Dave Sobel on a journey through the latest market shifts. Unpacking the layers beneath these corporate strategies reveals not just a quest for profitability but a complex interplay of management decisions in response to a post-pandemic world. Sobel’s sharp analysis illuminates the evolving landscape where traditional office policies collide with the growing appetite for flexible work arrangements, shaping how companies and employees chart their future courses.
Venturing into the realm of artificial intelligence, we confront the transformative effects on the job market, insisting on AI's role as an ally to human brilliance rather than a replacement. We examine the ethical conundrums that surface as AI becomes more pervasive, advocating for a regulatory balance that can nurture innovation while protecting societal interests. This episode is an enlightening exploration of how we can harness AI's potential responsibly, ensuring it serves as a force for good amid the small businesses and tech giants alike. Join us for a compelling dialogue that stitches together the complex fabric of artificial intelligence, from ethical frameworks to its real-world impact on healthcare and beyond.
Dave Sobel
https://www.davesobel.com/
https://twitter.com/djdaveet?lang=en
Follow TechTravels on X and YouTube
YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@thetechtravels
Tech Travels Twitter
https://twitter.com/thetechtravel
Tech Travels
https://techtravels.buzzsprout.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to Tech Travels hosted by the seasoned
tech enthusiast and industryexpert, steve Woodard.
With over 25 years ofexperience and a track record of
collaborating with thebrightest minds in technology,
steve is your seasoned guidethrough the ever-evolving world
of innovation.
Join us as we embark on aninsightful journey, exploring
(00:27):
the past, present and future oftech under Steve's expert
guidance.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Welcome back, fellow travelers, to another exciting
episode of Tech Travels.
Today we're thrilled to havehost Dave Sobel with us, who is
a prominent figure in the techindustry and he's the brilliant
mind behind the Business of Techpodcast.
Dave is renowned for hisinsightful commentary and his
deep dives into the IT servicesspace and offering a very unique
(00:54):
perspective on why we shouldcare about the latest industry
news, and through his YouTubechannel, msp Radio, he provides
invaluable content that'sfocused on IT service providers
that enriches the community withhis expertise.
Also as a consultant and creator, he's passionately supported by
his Patreon community.
Dave's work continues toinfluence and shape the IT
(01:17):
services industry.
So with that, Dave welcome, andthank you for sharing your time
with us.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Steve, thanks for having me.
I'm super excited to chat withyou.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
It's really great to have you here, especially at a
time when the tech industry isat a crossroad.
In recent months, the headlineshave been dominated by
widespread layoffs and tech,with over 450,000 positions
affected and just 38,000 thisyear alone.
It seems like this shift wassparked by a surge in
entrepreneurship.
(01:45):
Many see control and changingtheir own lives, and many of
them started their own ventures.
But with automation and AIreshaping the landscape, there's
talk of even greater changes by2030.
That's really going to impactmillions and, given your
expertise, we're really eager tounpack these dynamics here
today.
So how do you, as aprofessional, see this and
(02:09):
pivoting to a new era?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Well, there's a lot to unpack there.
So let's, let's try and break acouple of those pieces out.
So oftentimes the tech layoffstory is big tech, right, it's a
small collection of companiesthat are laying off large
numbers of people.
You know several hundred a time, thousand at a time.
Let me observe just broadlythat they're all geniuses when
(02:33):
the markets are going up andit's all market conditions when
things are going down.
They overhired, they made a badcall, they mismanaged their
staffing and they're cuttingback.
That's the headline.
That is the headline let's justcall it out there.
If they made the right calls onthat, they wouldn't do that.
And last I checked, they're alldoing really great
(02:55):
profitability wise.
So if they wanted to, for thelong term they could keep those
people.
Now I think they got a littleover confident, they got a
little fat, they got a littlelazy and they're trimming up to
make profits better.
But I don't think that's astatement on the viability of
tech.
I don't think it's a statementon the market.
I think it's a statement moreon their management and their
(03:16):
willingness to and drive forprofit.
It's not a bad thing, it's astatement of fact.
So, as I said, the geniuseswhen it all is going well,
aren't they?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, certainly, Dave .
Your point about management'sdecisions in contrast to market
conditions.
It's well taken.
But reflecting on the recentshifts, could it be seen as a
kind of recalibration from thepandemic era?
There was a surge in hiringpre-pandemic across tech, and
then that was then a rapid shiftto remote work.
(03:50):
I think now we're starting toobserve the real pullback, maybe
perhaps even a little bit ofresistance after companies
reconsider in office work.
So with all that, do you thinkthere's connection between the
operational pivot and theworkforce reductions that we're
witnessing?
Speaker 3 (04:08):
A little bit, but let's observe that there
actually was a massive hiringduring COVID of by the tech
companies.
There was a lot of hiring andthen COVID hits and most of the
large tech companies hired a lotmore.
They actually anticipated muchmore aggressive growth to
continue beyond the pandemicthan actually played out.
That's the important miss call.
(04:29):
I think the relation that whatyou know, the conversion to lots
of remote work made perfectsense because in that
environment they had to do it,and what we found and we're
finding more as the research iscoming out, is that actually had
little impact on productivity,except in the cases where it
made productivity better.
Now there are some some detailsof that that are worth
(04:51):
unpacking, where you do need tomake sure that you're investing
in career trajectories foryounger people.
There are some mentorshipbenefits of bringing people
together on a regular basis, butit isn't necessarily directly
correlated to you must be in theoffice five days a week.
I'm going to observe most ofthese organizations are also
(05:12):
have real estate leases thatthey're required to continue to
pay and they don't like wastingresources, so perhaps some of
this is related to the fact thatthey own buildings that they
want people using.
The other thing about it is isit's a real easy way to have
people opt out themselves andnot have to lay them off by
saying, well, we're enforcingreturn to office, you must come
(05:33):
back in.
Some people will select not todo that and that's an easier way
to have them quit themselves,then force them out the door,
and that is a difference from anemployment perspective.
There's not a lot of data andresearch going behind this.
There's lots of touchy feelylike oh, we think it's better
being in the office.
That's not data driven.
(05:53):
There's, in fact, you know,companies like Amazon who have
looked at that and had pushedback from their employees saying
we're a very data drivencompany and you're not actually
giving us data on why this istrue and funny.
They're not actually followingthrough on pushing back with
management data.
They're just saying, well, thisis the way it's going to be.
I'm going to say it'sconvenient of a way of doing it
(06:15):
and I'm going to kind of call BSon that.
They're not the only ones.
I'm just going to say that ifyou're actually driving from a
data perspective, that's not thecase.
Now, I don't want to be a totalbummer here.
There are a ton of companiesthat are actually leaning into
this as an opportunity andsaying we're going to be really
good at managing people, atmanaging remote work, and we're
(06:36):
going to make it a competitiveadvantage and it kind of favors
the small right now.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Yeah, Dave, you've highlighted a key trend.
I mean, the pivot towardsmanaging remote work is not just
a necessity but it's also astrategic advantage.
So, considering this shift,what practices are you seeing
these forward thinking companiesadopt?
And I'm thinking kind of beyondpractical measures like, how
are they navigating the culturaltransition and centralized
(07:02):
workplace to more of adistributed one?
I mean, essentially, what's theblueprint for the new
management ethos?
I mean, that seems to be thefavored kind of agile or
adaptable approach.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
So it seems I'm going to push back a little bit to
say I'm not necessarilyconvinced that it's a new way of
managing.
What I'm actually saying isthat it requires good management
.
It is easier to be a badmanager when your staff is
physically around and you canget away with a lot.
The scenes from the officespace with Bill Lumberg walking
around the office with hiscoffee cup are still true and
(07:38):
still funny, because badmanagement can get away with it
when they're all physicallytogether.
You can't get away with badmanagement when your team is
dispersed and that lazymanagement of just walking
around the office doesn't work.
You have to be much moredisciplined about it.
It is a skill to be a goodmanager and it is additionally a
(08:00):
skill to be a good remotemanager.
Now again, those that lean intothat and learn those skills,
both individually and as anorganization, are able to really
succeed.
But let's not sugarcoat it.
It's kind of covering up somebad management.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Yeah, certainly, dave .
I think there's definitely alot of merit in what you're
saying about the demands of goodmanagement, especially remotely
.
But the old way of thinking was, hey, the traditional office,
setting everyone's in the office.
There's all the tangiblesynergy that you can use to
accelerate innovation andcontinue that innovation around
an idea development.
But despite my own experienceof being fully transparent, my
(08:43):
own experience of being remotefor the last seven years, I have
seen reports that suggest bothchallenges and benefits of
remote work regardingcollaboration and innovation.
But from your perspective, isthere compelling data or
insights that either support orchallenge the notion that remote
work may hinder thecollaboration and creativity
(09:06):
within innovation?
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Yeah, I mean.
There's data coming out aboutthis where I mean nothing is
perfect, by the way, you know.
It's not that the answer iseveryone must be in the office
or that it all falls apart whenit's when it goes to remote work
.
It's about deliberateinvestment.
I'm not one that sits, as I'm afellow remote worker.
I've been working remotely fora very long time and I'm not one
who sits around and says younever have to go into the office
(09:29):
, you never have to bring peopletogether.
That's not true.
There are certain types of workthat make sense to bring people
together.
There's other kinds of workthat is not required of that,
and let's focus instead onoutcomes and results rather than
time.
Everybody that talks to me andsays their hybrid work strategy
(09:50):
is three days in, two days out,I smile and go.
You don't actually understandwhat hybrid work is, do you Like
?
It's about doing the rightthing in the right place at the
right time.
There's also an investment alack of investment in
asynchronous work, the fact thatyou don't necessarily have to
(10:11):
have everyone together all thetime in order for things to
happen.
You can build asynchronousteams, and anybody who's worked
across time zones gets this theidea that you know if you're
going to collaborate with yourcolleagues in Europe or
Australia, or you know in Indiaor you know in South Africa like
(10:31):
you're going to need to findways where time is not the
barrier.
This is applying that broadlyto the organization.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, the concept of workingacross time zones is something
that I've really been immersedin as well.
I mean it often meansunconventional hours, but it's
part of a broader digital shift.
But would you say that thepandemic has accelerated a
digital transformation where,hey, we're embracing AI and
we're adapting to these new workpatterns to really become
(11:04):
really essential?
And maybe, I guess, maybe doyou see these changes as a
response to the pandemic kind ofevolving, the rapid pace of
technical advancements?
Again, I'm using the worddigital transformation.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Well, you brought up digital transformation.
So I have to be the one tosmile about it, because digital
transformation is funny to me,because I kind of don't believe
in it.
In that, I think it's kind ofgarbage.
What it actually is a nice wayof being is consultants speak
for.
Well, you kind of fell behindon your investments in
technology and so we must catchyou up.
(11:39):
And instead of saying that, itsounds much better to say we
must digitally transform you.
And if you actually dig intothe specifics of it, it's always
about applying process to take,you know, a previous system and
move it more intodigitalization.
Well, by the way, you should bedoing that all the time Anybody
who runs a business so youshould be continually investing
(11:59):
in it and investing in newtechnologies, new techniques.
And if you're constantly doingit, you are always undergoing a
transformation process.
You just don't have to call itout as we are undergoing digital
transformation.
It's a nice way of saying youfell behind, and so, from my
perspective, you should alwaysbe looking at investing in your
(12:21):
organization and make sure thatyou're driving the latest use of
technology that makes sense.
You bring up the AI stuff.
It's like yeah, of coursethere's new stuff to hear and we
need to be considering it andintegrating it into our
workflows that make sense.
But this is just the next thingthat we're doing.
There will be something elsebeyond that, because there were
(12:42):
plenty of them before.
I can predict accurately thatthere will be yet another
technology down the road thatimpacts the way we do business.
There is one right, and so ifyou know there's always one,
there's always something youshould continually be in a
process of evaluating,considering and integrating, and
(13:04):
if you constantly practice that, you get really good at it,
like businesses get really goodat doing that.
Knowing it's a thing.
Too many businesses just alwaysassume that well, we've done it
and now everything will staythe same forever.
Has anybody actually ever beenin that world where everything
(13:24):
stays the same forever?
That's not reality, and butwe're oftentimes kind of.
We like to think it is like, oh, we're done, now we've
digitally transformed and you'renot expecting something else to
change on the ground.
Because I am.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yeah, I'm interested, you know, thinking about this,
you know, future of leadership.
I saw this course the other daywas the future of leadership in
a digitally transformed worldand it was around.
How you know, CEOs and C-Sweetscan really start to kind of
blend a new form of a mentalmodel of leadership.
That really kind of gives thema quote unquote post-digital
transformation world mindsetInteresting, How's the best?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
soup.
Wow, some consultant did reallywell coming up with that one,
because I started smiling up.
Aren't you constantly evolving?
Aren't you constantly learning?
Aren't there new techniques andways of doing it?
And, by the way, don't peoplechange?
And don't we, as society, getsmarter?
Like don't we?
You know we continually evolveand we need to recognize that.
(14:28):
You know, I'll give you likeI'll go a little bit on
attention.
Like I get really upset when Iget we push back on.
Like, oh, the millennials, theGen Zs, it's like, yeah, guys,
we taught them this, we gavethem better ideas and now
they're implementing it.
That's called progress.
Like they think differentlybecause they learn from our
(14:49):
lessons and we taught them tothink differently.
This is a good thing.
It's the investment we made ingetting better, because the
world continually changes andgets better.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
I want to double click on that real quick.
Can you give an example of whenyou say we kind of taught the
millennials or the youngergenerations?
Is it?
We gave them the tools like youknow in the internet laptops,
pcs, tablets.
I mean, is that that we talkingabout Like?
Give me an example.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
It's all of that Like .
It's interesting to me that wealways talk about the fact that
you know we push back.
Oh, millennials and Gen Z don'tknow necessarily how to
communicate the same way.
Well, yeah, we gave themdifferent tools.
We gave them new tools thatcommunicate differently, and
they have mastered those skillsand thus they do talk a little
(15:36):
differently than someone who'sbeen in the marketplace for, you
know, 30 years or such likethat, because they have learned
on different tools.
You and I were talking initiallybeforehand about typewriters.
Right, like you're intotypewriters, like the youth
today which is a fun way ofsaying it would look very funny
at us and say, like, well,what's that for?
It's not connected to anything,it doesn't result in the same
(15:58):
output.
I have to do more to it, andthey will look at it and say
like that is not a native toolto them, whereas the tools that
they've given us short formvideo, the ability to
communicate instantly withpeople in real time, the ability
to quickly process data, tohave data available to them all
the time that's inherent intothe way that they do business.
(16:18):
We gave them those tools, wetaught them those techniques
from day one and we didn't haveto teach them the before times,
you know in terms of learning it.
Now they're able to do thatstuff very effectively.
That's a benefit in my mind.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Yeah, and I want to kind of dovetail back to that.
First, you know, opening part,where I mentioned, you know
there's that automation, ai aresignificant factors and they're
predicting 12 million jobs aregoing to be affected by 2030.
And I kind of look at that andkind of say, well, that's kind
of a good thing, because I lookat it and say, look, I think the
consensus is that I as a toolis not so much as replacement,
is the idea that I should reallybe used as a tool that we can
(16:55):
use to augment Humancapabilities and verses
replacing them.
I think that's, you know peoplelook at it is a wallet.
I it's gonna replace my job,I'm gonna be out of job.
I think there's gonna be kindof an ebb and flow is how the
market Change, how thetechnology changes to create new
ways of working, and I thinkpeople who know I really well
Will have very easy ways to findopportunities within the job
(17:19):
market totally.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
You're not gonna be replaced by a, you're gonna be
replaced by somebody whounderstands I.
But, by the way, this is notnew either.
Like if I recently just coveredon my show, I do a segments on
friday school, the friday bigideas right, where I'm trying to
tackle stuff that doesn't fitinto a new story.
One of them was a was a bookreview on.
Author actually did a deep diveall the way back into technology
(17:42):
, stating back to the fourteenthcentury in terms of the
introduction of new technologieslike the printing press and the
production line and such likethat.
We've been here before in termsof the scare of oh, it's gonna
disrupt all jobs.
Yeah, it did.
You know what it also did?
Created all kinds of new jobs,like all kinds of new
capabilities were possiblebecause of these innovations
(18:05):
were not wired necessarily tolove change, as we've Talked
about, but this is one of thoseareas where we can't necessarily
see all of the things that aregoing to come from that, but
they are there and we have seenthis pattern before.
You're gonna be.
You need to embrace it.
You need to recognize that thisis an area where you need to
learn the technologies in orderto find your next spot in the
(18:28):
new version of this economy, butthis cycle is something that
we've seen over and over andover again.
By the way, we should learn thelessons from the previous
iterations.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
It's incredible to see what's happening with the.
I think I think they're sayingthat I globally is gonna be To
two and a half times higher thanit was in twenty seventeen, but
it's levels off over the pastfive years.
But the investment that's goinginto everything I related.
Now I think Google was doing akeynote speech and they
mentioned the word AI twohundred times in less than a one
hour speech and it seems likewe're almost overwashed with
(19:01):
everything I write.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
All right we're right in the hype cycle.
By the way, don't don't be,don't miss out on the fact that
there's a lot of investmentdollars searching for homes.
So companies are sendingsignals that they are AI
companies in order to look forinvestment dollars or to be part
of that.
So we need to separate out thehype from the implementation.
I constantly am looking forreally good use cases.
(19:22):
You know, where is it actuallymaking a difference?
There's some really coolresearch in terms of medical
applications like, for example,they've been testing the use of
AI in emergency rooms and whatthe one the.
The piece that I foundabsolutely fascinating was they
were putting generative AI inthe hands of doctors in an
emergency room and using it toinput symptoms and find out what
(19:44):
the generative AI recommended.
In ninety three percent oftimes that they ran this, the
actual diagnosis was in the topfive things generated by the
generative AI by just putting inthe symptoms.
That's an incredibly powerfultool that we can give to doctors
Now.
It augments them, it does notreplace them.
(20:05):
That's a very, very key bit.
But you've got to.
You know, a patient comes in,you're able to run the symptoms,
the computer assistant givesyou five possible scenarios and
in 93% of the cases you've got,one of them is in that top five.
That's fantastic.
That's exactly what we'relooking for transformative.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yeah, I definitely agree that the healthcare
example is a huge one where youget predictive and prescriptive
type of care, you get theability for doctors to be able
to quickly, faster diagnose thepatients.
And then you think about theamount of data that probably you
say a person comes in and theyprobably have certain conditions
, they have certainprescriptions that are probably
(20:48):
tagged to them and you know, youthink across all of this you're
trying to find a needle in thehaystack.
It is too much for one personto try to sift through in a very
short amount of time.
Right, the patient could be inan emergency state where you
need to act quickly before youcan operate.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Mm-hmm right, and so you have to have that
information.
And, by the way, medicine is agreat area to look at.
It's constantly changing,there's new studies, there's new
information, there's new drugsout there.
Like this is a way ofempowering doctors to give them
all kinds of information, andyou can apply that in multiple
industries.
I'm super excited about what'spossible here.
Now, the first one also thensay is like we have to be really
(21:23):
thoughtful about the way we'rethinking about its impact, right
, data privacy, data protection,making sure that we're not
dealing with too muchhallucinations.
We don't want to let just letthe AIs run everything.
But, by the way, that's notlooking like that's the most
effective use.
The most effective use isdistinctly an augmentation.
I want to point out we're goingto disrupt a lot of jobs
(21:45):
Totally are, but we're alsogoing to create new ones, and
we've seen this again thehistorical pattern over and,
over and over again that itcreates new opportunities too.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
You mentioned the whole thing around data privacy
and kind of.
It brings to me kind of thiswhole thing around kind of
governance and framework aroundtransparency, around AI, right.
So Google announced this weekthat they were going to create a
sub entity where they weregoing to allow them to kind of
build an ethical framework forwhich they would then apply
(22:15):
against Google's AI, and I kindof thought for a second, you
know, hey, that's great, but dowe really believe that kind of
having you govern your own typeof AI is the right choice?
Or do we see some sort of kindof like outside tech, outside of
a specific company, the kind ofan industry wide type of
framework where everyone appliesthe same framework?
Because I look around andthere's multiple AI frameworks,
(22:38):
there's multiple type of ethicalframeworks Doesn't seem like
everyone's kind of following thesame one.
Where do you start to see thisconversation going?
Is it kind of more we'll letthem govern themselves, or we
need a bigger audience to beable to have transparency into
this?
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Oh, we need regulation.
I mean, we need like regulation.
When we talk about a societalframework that's called laws, we
have a system for that.
Like that's the way that'ssupposed to go.
You know, I do not bemoan anycorporation doing exactly what
they are built to do, and it'smaximize profit.
That's what they do.
They're organized, they arereally good at it.
(23:15):
They are designed to build amechanism that brings prosperity
to its employees and to theinvestors and all of that stuff.
And that is the point of thesystem.
And the rest of us, if we wantto have cross company frameworks
, those are called regulations,everybody.
This is kind of a little simpleand I kind of laugh and go like
(23:36):
we've made politics an evildiscussion because we polarized
so much of it.
But in the framework is there Iuse a really simple example to
talk about this all the time.
Steve, I think we can generallyagree that both you and I would
like to have water that doesn'tcause fish to have three eyes
and like kills us in our sleep,right, we'd like to have
(23:56):
drinking water that's clean.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
I agree with that.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
Okay, right Now, if you and I go into the chemical
processing plant business, thebest way for us to get rid of
our waste is build our factorynext to a river and dump it in
by far the cheapest way to makethe problem go away.
Right, like just is.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
If you're pure capitalists.
Well, society has decided thatwe don't really want three-eyed
fish to come out of that stream,that we would like to have a
process where the companiescan't necessarily do that.
That's called regulation.
Now, by the way, we can havesuper intelligent conversations
with experts about what thedefinition of clean water is.
(24:38):
I think we can say that I'dlike experts to figure that out.
There's some variability there.
I don't know that industry.
I don't know if you do.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Well, the thing that I've always experienced is that,
you know, as I have spoken tonumerous experts who are
technology experts, people whoreally work very, very in the
technology industry, and they'reall kind of crying for the same
thing is that they're sayinglisten, you know, there needs to
be regulatory body, there needsto be a governing body, there
needs to be a framework and itneeds to be kind of passed at
(25:12):
the government level.
I think Sam Altman was sayingthe same thing as well is that
there needs to be some sort oflicense, that the government
needs to regulate, that, once acompany gets to a certain size
and scale with a certain type ofAI entity, is that they need to
obtain a license from thegovernment.
What's your take on that?
Speaker 3 (25:30):
I mean, I mean I'll even push back and go like I
don't necessarily think it'ssize and scale, I think we
actually need some regulationsaround IT.
I mean I sort of smile.
I deal with a lot of small andmid-sized customers when I talk
to my audience.
Like, if you think about mostof technology, it's small
companies implementingtechnology for other small
companies.
We always love to talk aboutthe big companies because
(25:51):
they're exciting and they'renewsworthy, but most of the
American economy is driven bysmall business Just is Like
that's the reality of it.
The guy that cuts my hair ismore regulated than the guy that
manages my network and dataprotection as a small business.
That should frighten everybody,yeah, absolutely frighten you.
(26:14):
Like you've got to be licensedat some level to be a doctor,
but you've also got to belicensed to be a lawyer, to be
an accountant, to deliver allkinds of business services.
But IT and technology, oh no,we can't possibly regulate those
guys.
What, like what?
This just seems a little off tome.
Like this just and, by the way,I've been in this business for
(26:37):
25 years.
I ran a managed servicesprovider.
It was easier for me to startthat than start a barbershop.
That kind of feels off to meand I laugh about it because I
want to point out kind of theabsurdity of saying, oh well,
technology is completelydifferent, we can't possibly be
regulated.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
No, it seems like every single time, you know
there's Congress polls, the techexecutives in front of Congress
or Senate or whatever, and youkind of look and you say they
really are really strugglingwith kind of the basics of how
technology works.
I think they're kind of likeprobing, these tech CEOs, and
(27:18):
they're kind of like they'realmost like continuously
questioning, like they'restruggling to understand.
I don't know if we've got areal strong grasp of people who
are advising the people ingovernment of how the tech works
and I think that they're reallystruggling to kind of catch up.
Right, you have social media.
You've got now you've got Web3,you've got Metaverse, you've
(27:39):
got AI and it's now.
You've got all of thesedifferent layers of technology
that are going to kind of bewidely adopted and people are
going to say, well, where is theregulation around?
You know how people are goingto basically be dealing within a
virtual world.
What about when people aredealing with AI entities?
I was a scam.
I was scammed because of an AI.
(27:59):
Who's at fault for that right?
So that I agree that thereneeds to be a framework.
I guess the question is is howare we going to kind of push
this to a point where there isconsensus between government or
tech companies, or is it justgovernments just going to wake
up one day?
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Well, I want to point something out on this Is I
really want you to think about?
You brought that up right,those tech hearings and you've
got big tech CEOs sitting on oneside and you have lawmakers on
the other and you have lawmakerstalking about all the things
that are going wrong.
Who's in charge of writing theregulations to make that stuff
not happen?
Last I checked, it's not thetech CEOs.
(28:35):
It isn't.
So if we're going to pointsomebody out as failing, it's
the regulator side, the lawmakerside, for failing.
It's their job, not the techCEOs job, to write that.
And I want to push back alittle bit on another thought.
We have tons of really talentedpeople that work in government
(28:56):
thinking about this.
Public services is an honorableprofession and we really want
to celebrate the people thathave invested in that.
There's some really smartpeople in there, but it's
lawmakers jobs to fix thisproblem.
And if they're not doing a goodjob about it, society guys like
you and me and all of thepeople around we should change
(29:16):
who those people are 100% agree.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
100% agree.
Wow, dave, that was amazing.
So, as we, I want to thank youfor that.
That's definitely quite a lot.
I want to thank you.
Thank you so much as we reachthe end of our exploration into
our digital evolving world.
I want to thank you, dave, forthe wealth of insights and your
forward thinking perspectivethat you shared with us today,
(29:41):
and your expertise has shedlight on the nuances of leading
us through the charge, on howwe're going to navigate this
future of technology andbusiness.
Appreciate you so much forcoming on the show.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Oh, thanks for having me, Steve.
This has been great fun.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Awesome.
The shows are posted and if youwant to share this show with
your friends, please share onyour preferred social media
platform.
I would love your help to helpbring awareness to this channel.
You can follow me on Twitter atthe Tech Channel.
Until next time, stay curious,stay informed.
Most importantly, happy travels.
Welcome to Tech Travels hosted by the seasoned
tech enthusiast and industryexpert, steve Woodard.
With over 25 years ofexperience and a track record of
collaborating with thebrightest minds in technology,
steve is your seasoned guidethrough the ever-evolving world
of innovation.
Join us as we embark on aninsightful journey, exploring
(00:27):
the past, present and future oftech under Steve's expert
guidance.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Welcome back, fellow travelers, to another exciting
episode of Tech Travels.
Today we're thrilled to havehost Dave Sobel with us, who is
a prominent figure in the techindustry and he's the brilliant
mind behind the Business of Techpodcast.
Dave is renowned for hisinsightful commentary and his
deep dives into the IT servicesspace and offering a very unique
(00:54):
perspective on why we shouldcare about the latest industry
news, and through his YouTubechannel, msp Radio, he provides
invaluable content that'sfocused on IT service providers
that enriches the community withhis expertise.
Also as a consultant and creator, he's passionately supported by
his Patreon community.
Dave's work continues toinfluence and shape the IT
(01:17):
services industry.
So with that, Dave welcome, andthank you for sharing your time
with us.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Steve, thanks for having me.
I'm super excited to chat withyou.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
It's really great to have you here, especially at a
time when the tech industry isat a crossroad.
In recent months, the headlineshave been dominated by
widespread layoffs and tech,with over 450,000 positions
affected and just 38,000 thisyear alone.
It seems like this shift wassparked by a surge in
entrepreneurship.
(01:45):
Many see control and changingtheir own lives, and many of
them started their own ventures.
But with automation and AIreshaping the landscape, there's
talk of even greater changes by2030.
That's really going to impactmillions and, given your
expertise, we're really eager tounpack these dynamics here
today.
So how do you, as aprofessional, see this and
(02:09):
pivoting to a new era?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Well, there's a lot to unpack there.
So let's, let's try and break acouple of those pieces out.
So oftentimes the tech layoffstory is big tech, right, it's a
small collection of companiesthat are laying off large
numbers of people.
You know several hundred a time, thousand at a time.
Let me observe just broadlythat they're all geniuses when
(02:33):
the markets are going up andit's all market conditions when
things are going down.
They overhired, they made a badcall, they mismanaged their
staffing and they're cuttingback.
That's the headline.
That is the headline let's justcall it out there.
If they made the right calls onthat, they wouldn't do that.
And last I checked, they're alldoing really great
(02:55):
profitability wise.
So if they wanted to, for thelong term they could keep those
people.
Now I think they got a littleover confident, they got a
little fat, they got a littlelazy and they're trimming up to
make profits better.
But I don't think that's astatement on the viability of
tech.
I don't think it's a statementon the market.
I think it's a statement moreon their management and their
(03:16):
willingness to and drive forprofit.
It's not a bad thing, it's astatement of fact.
So, as I said, the geniuseswhen it all is going well,
aren't they?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, certainly, Dave .
Your point about management'sdecisions in contrast to market
conditions.
It's well taken.
But reflecting on the recentshifts, could it be seen as a
kind of recalibration from thepandemic era?
There was a surge in hiringpre-pandemic across tech, and
then that was then a rapid shiftto remote work.
(03:50):
I think now we're starting toobserve the real pullback, maybe
perhaps even a little bit ofresistance after companies
reconsider in office work.
So with all that, do you thinkthere's connection between the
operational pivot and theworkforce reductions that we're
witnessing?
Speaker 3 (04:08):
A little bit, but let's observe that there
actually was a massive hiringduring COVID of by the tech
companies.
There was a lot of hiring andthen COVID hits and most of the
large tech companies hired a lotmore.
They actually anticipated muchmore aggressive growth to
continue beyond the pandemicthan actually played out.
That's the important miss call.
(04:29):
I think the relation that whatyou know, the conversion to lots
of remote work made perfectsense because in that
environment they had to do it,and what we found and we're
finding more as the research iscoming out, is that actually had
little impact on productivity,except in the cases where it
made productivity better.
Now there are some some detailsof that that are worth
(04:51):
unpacking, where you do need tomake sure that you're investing
in career trajectories foryounger people.
There are some mentorshipbenefits of bringing people
together on a regular basis, butit isn't necessarily directly
correlated to you must be in theoffice five days a week.
I'm going to observe most ofthese organizations are also
(05:12):
have real estate leases thatthey're required to continue to
pay and they don't like wastingresources, so perhaps some of
this is related to the fact thatthey own buildings that they
want people using.
The other thing about it is isit's a real easy way to have
people opt out themselves andnot have to lay them off by
saying, well, we're enforcingreturn to office, you must come
(05:33):
back in.
Some people will select not todo that and that's an easier way
to have them quit themselves,then force them out the door,
and that is a difference from anemployment perspective.
There's not a lot of data andresearch going behind this.
There's lots of touchy feelylike oh, we think it's better
being in the office.
That's not data driven.
(05:53):
There's, in fact, you know,companies like Amazon who have
looked at that and had pushedback from their employees saying
we're a very data drivencompany and you're not actually
giving us data on why this istrue and funny.
They're not actually followingthrough on pushing back with
management data.
They're just saying, well, thisis the way it's going to be.
I'm going to say it'sconvenient of a way of doing it
(06:15):
and I'm going to kind of call BSon that.
They're not the only ones.
I'm just going to say that ifyou're actually driving from a
data perspective, that's not thecase.
Now, I don't want to be a totalbummer here.
There are a ton of companiesthat are actually leaning into
this as an opportunity andsaying we're going to be really
good at managing people, atmanaging remote work, and we're
(06:36):
going to make it a competitiveadvantage and it kind of favors
the small right now.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Yeah, Dave, you've highlighted a key trend.
I mean, the pivot towardsmanaging remote work is not just
a necessity but it's also astrategic advantage.
So, considering this shift,what practices are you seeing
these forward thinking companiesadopt?
And I'm thinking kind of beyondpractical measures like, how
are they navigating the culturaltransition and centralized
(07:02):
workplace to more of adistributed one?
I mean, essentially, what's theblueprint for the new
management ethos?
I mean, that seems to be thefavored kind of agile or
adaptable approach.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
So it seems I'm going to push back a little bit to
say I'm not necessarilyconvinced that it's a new way of
managing.
What I'm actually saying isthat it requires good management
.
It is easier to be a badmanager when your staff is
physically around and you canget away with a lot.
The scenes from the officespace with Bill Lumberg walking
around the office with hiscoffee cup are still true and
(07:38):
still funny, because badmanagement can get away with it
when they're all physicallytogether.
You can't get away with badmanagement when your team is
dispersed and that lazymanagement of just walking
around the office doesn't work.
You have to be much moredisciplined about it.
It is a skill to be a goodmanager and it is additionally a
(08:00):
skill to be a good remotemanager.
Now again, those that lean intothat and learn those skills,
both individually and as anorganization, are able to really
succeed.
But let's not sugarcoat it.
It's kind of covering up somebad management.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Yeah, certainly, dave .
I think there's definitely alot of merit in what you're
saying about the demands of goodmanagement, especially remotely
.
But the old way of thinking was, hey, the traditional office,
setting everyone's in the office.
There's all the tangiblesynergy that you can use to
accelerate innovation andcontinue that innovation around
an idea development.
But despite my own experienceof being fully transparent, my
(08:43):
own experience of being remotefor the last seven years, I have
seen reports that suggest bothchallenges and benefits of
remote work regardingcollaboration and innovation.
But from your perspective, isthere compelling data or
insights that either support orchallenge the notion that remote
work may hinder thecollaboration and creativity
(09:06):
within innovation?
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Yeah, I mean.
There's data coming out aboutthis where I mean nothing is
perfect, by the way, you know.
It's not that the answer iseveryone must be in the office
or that it all falls apart whenit's when it goes to remote work
.
It's about deliberateinvestment.
I'm not one that sits, as I'm afellow remote worker.
I've been working remotely fora very long time and I'm not one
who sits around and says younever have to go into the office
(09:29):
, you never have to bring peopletogether.
That's not true.
There are certain types of workthat make sense to bring people
together.
There's other kinds of workthat is not required of that,
and let's focus instead onoutcomes and results rather than
time.
Everybody that talks to me andsays their hybrid work strategy
(09:50):
is three days in, two days out,I smile and go.
You don't actually understandwhat hybrid work is, do you Like
?
It's about doing the rightthing in the right place at the
right time.
There's also an investment alack of investment in
asynchronous work, the fact thatyou don't necessarily have to
(10:11):
have everyone together all thetime in order for things to
happen.
You can build asynchronousteams, and anybody who's worked
across time zones gets this theidea that you know if you're
going to collaborate with yourcolleagues in Europe or
Australia, or you know in Indiaor you know in South Africa like
(10:31):
you're going to need to findways where time is not the
barrier.
This is applying that broadlyto the organization.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, the concept of workingacross time zones is something
that I've really been immersedin as well.
I mean it often meansunconventional hours, but it's
part of a broader digital shift.
But would you say that thepandemic has accelerated a
digital transformation where,hey, we're embracing AI and
we're adapting to these new workpatterns to really become
(11:04):
really essential?
And maybe, I guess, maybe doyou see these changes as a
response to the pandemic kind ofevolving, the rapid pace of
technical advancements?
Again, I'm using the worddigital transformation.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Well, you brought up digital transformation.
So I have to be the one tosmile about it, because digital
transformation is funny to me,because I kind of don't believe
in it.
In that, I think it's kind ofgarbage.
What it actually is a nice wayof being is consultants speak
for.
Well, you kind of fell behindon your investments in
technology and so we must catchyou up.
(11:39):
And instead of saying that, itsounds much better to say we
must digitally transform you.
And if you actually dig intothe specifics of it, it's always
about applying process to take,you know, a previous system and
move it more intodigitalization.
Well, by the way, you should bedoing that all the time Anybody
who runs a business so youshould be continually investing
(11:59):
in it and investing in newtechnologies, new techniques.
And if you're constantly doingit, you are always undergoing a
transformation process.
You just don't have to call itout as we are undergoing digital
transformation.
It's a nice way of saying youfell behind, and so, from my
perspective, you should alwaysbe looking at investing in your
(12:21):
organization and make sure thatyou're driving the latest use of
technology that makes sense.
You bring up the AI stuff.
It's like yeah, of coursethere's new stuff to hear and we
need to be considering it andintegrating it into our
workflows that make sense.
But this is just the next thingthat we're doing.
There will be something elsebeyond that, because there were
(12:42):
plenty of them before.
I can predict accurately thatthere will be yet another
technology down the road thatimpacts the way we do business.
There is one right, and so ifyou know there's always one,
there's always something youshould continually be in a
process of evaluating,considering and integrating, and
(13:04):
if you constantly practice that, you get really good at it,
like businesses get really goodat doing that.
Knowing it's a thing.
Too many businesses just alwaysassume that well, we've done it
and now everything will staythe same forever.
Has anybody actually ever beenin that world where everything
(13:24):
stays the same forever?
That's not reality, and butwe're oftentimes kind of.
We like to think it is like, oh, we're done, now we've
digitally transformed and you'renot expecting something else to
change on the ground.
Because I am.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yeah, I'm interested, you know, thinking about this,
you know, future of leadership.
I saw this course the other daywas the future of leadership in
a digitally transformed worldand it was around.
How you know, CEOs and C-Sweetscan really start to kind of
blend a new form of a mentalmodel of leadership.
That really kind of gives thema quote unquote post-digital
transformation world mindsetInteresting, How's the best?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
soup.
Wow, some consultant did reallywell coming up with that one,
because I started smiling up.
Aren't you constantly evolving?
Aren't you constantly learning?
Aren't there new techniques andways of doing it?
And, by the way, don't peoplechange?
And don't we, as society, getsmarter?
Like don't we?
You know we continually evolveand we need to recognize that.
(14:28):
You know, I'll give you likeI'll go a little bit on
attention.
Like I get really upset when Iget we push back on.
Like, oh, the millennials, theGen Zs, it's like, yeah, guys,
we taught them this, we gavethem better ideas and now
they're implementing it.
That's called progress.
Like they think differentlybecause they learn from our
(14:49):
lessons and we taught them tothink differently.
This is a good thing.
It's the investment we made ingetting better, because the
world continually changes andgets better.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
I want to double click on that real quick.
Can you give an example of whenyou say we kind of taught the
millennials or the youngergenerations?
Is it?
We gave them the tools like youknow in the internet laptops,
pcs, tablets.
I mean, is that that we talkingabout Like?
Give me an example.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
It's all of that Like .
It's interesting to me that wealways talk about the fact that
you know we push back.
Oh, millennials and Gen Z don'tknow necessarily how to
communicate the same way.
Well, yeah, we gave themdifferent tools.
We gave them new tools thatcommunicate differently, and
they have mastered those skillsand thus they do talk a little
(15:36):
differently than someone who'sbeen in the marketplace for, you
know, 30 years or such likethat, because they have learned
on different tools.
You and I were talking initiallybeforehand about typewriters.
Right, like you're intotypewriters, like the youth
today which is a fun way ofsaying it would look very funny
at us and say, like, well,what's that for?
It's not connected to anything,it doesn't result in the same
(15:58):
output.
I have to do more to it, andthey will look at it and say
like that is not a native toolto them, whereas the tools that
they've given us short formvideo, the ability to
communicate instantly withpeople in real time, the ability
to quickly process data, tohave data available to them all
the time that's inherent intothe way that they do business.
(16:18):
We gave them those tools, wetaught them those techniques
from day one and we didn't haveto teach them the before times,
you know in terms of learning it.
Now they're able to do thatstuff very effectively.
That's a benefit in my mind.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Yeah, and I want to kind of dovetail back to that.
First, you know, opening part,where I mentioned, you know
there's that automation, ai aresignificant factors and they're
predicting 12 million jobs aregoing to be affected by 2030.
And I kind of look at that andkind of say, well, that's kind
of a good thing, because I lookat it and say, look, I think the
consensus is that I as a toolis not so much as replacement,
is the idea that I should reallybe used as a tool that we can
(16:55):
use to augment Humancapabilities and verses
replacing them.
I think that's, you know peoplelook at it is a wallet.
I it's gonna replace my job,I'm gonna be out of job.
I think there's gonna be kindof an ebb and flow is how the
market Change, how thetechnology changes to create new
ways of working, and I thinkpeople who know I really well
Will have very easy ways to findopportunities within the job
(17:19):
market totally.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
You're not gonna be replaced by a, you're gonna be
replaced by somebody whounderstands I.
But, by the way, this is notnew either.
Like if I recently just coveredon my show, I do a segments on
friday school, the friday bigideas right, where I'm trying to
tackle stuff that doesn't fitinto a new story.
One of them was a was a bookreview on.
Author actually did a deep diveall the way back into technology
(17:42):
, stating back to the fourteenthcentury in terms of the
introduction of new technologieslike the printing press and the
production line and such likethat.
We've been here before in termsof the scare of oh, it's gonna
disrupt all jobs.
Yeah, it did.
You know what it also did?
Created all kinds of new jobs,like all kinds of new
capabilities were possiblebecause of these innovations
(18:05):
were not wired necessarily tolove change, as we've Talked
about, but this is one of thoseareas where we can't necessarily
see all of the things that aregoing to come from that, but
they are there and we have seenthis pattern before.
You're gonna be.
You need to embrace it.
You need to recognize that thisis an area where you need to
learn the technologies in orderto find your next spot in the
(18:28):
new version of this economy, butthis cycle is something that
we've seen over and over andover again.
By the way, we should learn thelessons from the previous
iterations.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
It's incredible to see what's happening with the.
I think I think they're sayingthat I globally is gonna be To
two and a half times higher thanit was in twenty seventeen, but
it's levels off over the pastfive years.
But the investment that's goinginto everything I related.
Now I think Google was doing akeynote speech and they
mentioned the word AI twohundred times in less than a one
hour speech and it seems likewe're almost overwashed with
(19:01):
everything I write.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
All right we're right in the hype cycle.
By the way, don't don't be,don't miss out on the fact that
there's a lot of investmentdollars searching for homes.
So companies are sendingsignals that they are AI
companies in order to look forinvestment dollars or to be part
of that.
So we need to separate out thehype from the implementation.
I constantly am looking forreally good use cases.
(19:22):
You know, where is it actuallymaking a difference?
There's some really coolresearch in terms of medical
applications like, for example,they've been testing the use of
AI in emergency rooms and whatthe one the.
The piece that I foundabsolutely fascinating was they
were putting generative AI inthe hands of doctors in an
emergency room and using it toinput symptoms and find out what
(19:44):
the generative AI recommended.
In ninety three percent oftimes that they ran this, the
actual diagnosis was in the topfive things generated by the
generative AI by just putting inthe symptoms.
That's an incredibly powerfultool that we can give to doctors
Now.
It augments them, it does notreplace them.
(20:05):
That's a very, very key bit.
But you've got to.
You know, a patient comes in,you're able to run the symptoms,
the computer assistant givesyou five possible scenarios and
in 93% of the cases you've got,one of them is in that top five.
That's fantastic.
That's exactly what we'relooking for transformative.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yeah, I definitely agree that the healthcare
example is a huge one where youget predictive and prescriptive
type of care, you get theability for doctors to be able
to quickly, faster diagnose thepatients.
And then you think about theamount of data that probably you
say a person comes in and theyprobably have certain conditions
, they have certainprescriptions that are probably
(20:48):
tagged to them and you know, youthink across all of this you're
trying to find a needle in thehaystack.
It is too much for one personto try to sift through in a very
short amount of time.
Right, the patient could be inan emergency state where you
need to act quickly before youcan operate.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Mm-hmm right, and so you have to have that
information.
And, by the way, medicine is agreat area to look at.
It's constantly changing,there's new studies, there's new
information, there's new drugsout there.
Like this is a way ofempowering doctors to give them
all kinds of information, andyou can apply that in multiple
industries.
I'm super excited about what'spossible here.
Now, the first one also thensay is like we have to be really
(21:23):
thoughtful about the way we'rethinking about its impact, right
, data privacy, data protection,making sure that we're not
dealing with too muchhallucinations.
We don't want to let just letthe AIs run everything.
But, by the way, that's notlooking like that's the most
effective use.
The most effective use isdistinctly an augmentation.
I want to point out we're goingto disrupt a lot of jobs
(21:45):
Totally are, but we're alsogoing to create new ones, and
we've seen this again thehistorical pattern over and,
over and over again that itcreates new opportunities too.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
You mentioned the whole thing around data privacy
and kind of.
It brings to me kind of thiswhole thing around kind of
governance and framework aroundtransparency, around AI, right.
So Google announced this weekthat they were going to create a
sub entity where they weregoing to allow them to kind of
build an ethical framework forwhich they would then apply
(22:15):
against Google's AI, and I kindof thought for a second, you
know, hey, that's great, but dowe really believe that kind of
having you govern your own typeof AI is the right choice?
Or do we see some sort of kindof like outside tech, outside of
a specific company, the kind ofan industry wide type of
framework where everyone appliesthe same framework?
Because I look around andthere's multiple AI frameworks,
(22:38):
there's multiple type of ethicalframeworks Doesn't seem like
everyone's kind of following thesame one.
Where do you start to see thisconversation going?
Is it kind of more we'll letthem govern themselves, or we
need a bigger audience to beable to have transparency into
this?
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Oh, we need regulation.
I mean, we need like regulation.
When we talk about a societalframework that's called laws, we
have a system for that.
Like that's the way that'ssupposed to go.
You know, I do not bemoan anycorporation doing exactly what
they are built to do, and it'smaximize profit.
That's what they do.
They're organized, they arereally good at it.
(23:15):
They are designed to build amechanism that brings prosperity
to its employees and to theinvestors and all of that stuff.
And that is the point of thesystem.
And the rest of us, if we wantto have cross company frameworks
, those are called regulations,everybody.
This is kind of a little simpleand I kind of laugh and go like
(23:36):
we've made politics an evildiscussion because we polarized
so much of it.
But in the framework is there Iuse a really simple example to
talk about this all the time.
Steve, I think we can generallyagree that both you and I would
like to have water that doesn'tcause fish to have three eyes
and like kills us in our sleep,right, we'd like to have
(23:56):
drinking water that's clean.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
I agree with that.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
Okay, right Now, if you and I go into the chemical
processing plant business, thebest way for us to get rid of
our waste is build our factorynext to a river and dump it in
by far the cheapest way to makethe problem go away.
Right, like just is.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
If you're pure capitalists.
Well, society has decided thatwe don't really want three-eyed
fish to come out of that stream,that we would like to have a
process where the companiescan't necessarily do that.
That's called regulation.
Now, by the way, we can havesuper intelligent conversations
with experts about what thedefinition of clean water is.
(24:38):
I think we can say that I'dlike experts to figure that out.
There's some variability there.
I don't know that industry.
I don't know if you do.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Well, the thing that I've always experienced is that,
you know, as I have spoken tonumerous experts who are
technology experts, people whoreally work very, very in the
technology industry, and they'reall kind of crying for the same
thing is that they're sayinglisten, you know, there needs to
be regulatory body, there needsto be a governing body, there
needs to be a framework and itneeds to be kind of passed at
(25:12):
the government level.
I think Sam Altman was sayingthe same thing as well is that
there needs to be some sort oflicense, that the government
needs to regulate, that, once acompany gets to a certain size
and scale with a certain type ofAI entity, is that they need to
obtain a license from thegovernment.
What's your take on that?
Speaker 3 (25:30):
I mean, I mean I'll even push back and go like I
don't necessarily think it'ssize and scale, I think we
actually need some regulationsaround IT.
I mean I sort of smile.
I deal with a lot of small andmid-sized customers when I talk
to my audience.
Like, if you think about mostof technology, it's small
companies implementingtechnology for other small
companies.
We always love to talk aboutthe big companies because
(25:51):
they're exciting and they'renewsworthy, but most of the
American economy is driven bysmall business Just is Like
that's the reality of it.
The guy that cuts my hair ismore regulated than the guy that
manages my network and dataprotection as a small business.
That should frighten everybody,yeah, absolutely frighten you.
(26:14):
Like you've got to be licensedat some level to be a doctor,
but you've also got to belicensed to be a lawyer, to be
an accountant, to deliver allkinds of business services.
But IT and technology, oh no,we can't possibly regulate those
guys.
What, like what?
This just seems a little off tome.
Like this just and, by the way,I've been in this business for
(26:37):
25 years.
I ran a managed servicesprovider.
It was easier for me to startthat than start a barbershop.
That kind of feels off to meand I laugh about it because I
want to point out kind of theabsurdity of saying, oh well,
technology is completelydifferent, we can't possibly be
regulated.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
No, it seems like every single time, you know
there's Congress polls, the techexecutives in front of Congress
or Senate or whatever, and youkind of look and you say they
really are really strugglingwith kind of the basics of how
technology works.
I think they're kind of likeprobing, these tech CEOs, and
(27:18):
they're kind of like they'realmost like continuously
questioning, like they'restruggling to understand.
I don't know if we've got areal strong grasp of people who
are advising the people ingovernment of how the tech works
and I think that they're reallystruggling to kind of catch up.
Right, you have social media.
You've got now you've got Web3,you've got Metaverse, you've
(27:39):
got AI and it's now.
You've got all of thesedifferent layers of technology
that are going to kind of bewidely adopted and people are
going to say, well, where is theregulation around?
You know how people are goingto basically be dealing within a
virtual world.
What about when people aredealing with AI entities?
I was a scam.
I was scammed because of an AI.
(27:59):
Who's at fault for that right?
So that I agree that thereneeds to be a framework.
I guess the question is is howare we going to kind of push
this to a point where there isconsensus between government or
tech companies, or is it justgovernments just going to wake
up one day?
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Well, I want to point something out on this Is I
really want you to think about?
You brought that up right,those tech hearings and you've
got big tech CEOs sitting on oneside and you have lawmakers on
the other and you have lawmakerstalking about all the things
that are going wrong.
Who's in charge of writing theregulations to make that stuff
not happen?
Last I checked, it's not thetech CEOs.
(28:35):
It isn't.
So if we're going to pointsomebody out as failing, it's
the regulator side, the lawmakerside, for failing.
It's their job, not the techCEOs job, to write that.
And I want to push back alittle bit on another thought.
We have tons of really talentedpeople that work in government
(28:56):
thinking about this.
Public services is an honorableprofession and we really want
to celebrate the people thathave invested in that.
There's some really smartpeople in there, but it's
lawmakers jobs to fix thisproblem.
And if they're not doing a goodjob about it, society guys like
you and me and all of thepeople around we should change
(29:16):
who those people are 100% agree.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
100% agree.
Wow, dave, that was amazing.
So, as we, I want to thank youfor that.
That's definitely quite a lot.
I want to thank you.
Thank you so much as we reachthe end of our exploration into
our digital evolving world.
I want to thank you, dave, forthe wealth of insights and your
forward thinking perspectivethat you shared with us today,
(29:41):
and your expertise has shedlight on the nuances of leading
us through the charge, on howwe're going to navigate this
future of technology andbusiness.
Appreciate you so much forcoming on the show.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Oh, thanks for having me, Steve.
This has been great fun.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Awesome.
The shows are posted and if youwant to share this show with
your friends, please share onyour preferred social media
platform.
I would love your help to helpbring awareness to this channel.
You can follow me on Twitter atthe Tech Channel.
Until next time, stay curious,stay informed.
Most importantly, happy travels.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com